User:Sukusala/sandbox

Ānantarya Karma (Sanskrit) or Ānantarika Kamma (Pāli) are the most serious offences in Buddhism that, at death, through the overwhelming karmic strength of any single one of them, bring immediate disaster. Both Buddhists and non-Buddhists must avoid them at all costs. Such offenses prevent perpetrators from attaining any of the stages of enlightenment and from ordaining into the Sangha. The offences are:


 * 1) Killing one's mother
 * 2) Killing one's father
 * 3) Killing an Arahant
 * 4) Wounding a Tathagata
 * 5) Creating schism in the Sangha (Anguttara iii 440)

Ānantarika Kamma is so serious that even Amitabha Buddha abandoned all hope. His Vow 18 reads:

"'If I attain Buddhahood and a sentient being aspires with faith and joy to be reborn in my Sukhavati Pure Land: if they recite my name just ten times and, in spite of this, are not reborn there, then may I myself not attain enlightenment [in the first place]. Two exceptions to this solemn promise are in respect of, firstly, those who have committed the five terrible offences and, secondly, of those who have vilified the Sublime Dharma [because such people cannot be reborn in Sukhavati].'"

There are another five unlisted Ānantarika Kamma offences found in the scriptures:


 * 1) Physically obstructing the Lord Buddha's path
 * 2) Rejecting the Lord Buddha's claim to supernormal insight
 * 3) Accusing the Lord Buddha or an Arahant of sexual misconduct
 * 4) Wounding an Arahant
 * 5) Raping ordained monastics

Physically obstructing the Lord Buddha's path
When Suppabuddha blocked the Lord Buddha's path, forcing him to turn back, he was reborn in hell.

Rejecting the Lord Buddha's claim to supernormal insight
Some people rejected the Buddha's claim to supernormal insight, saying:

"'The recluse Gotama does not have any outstanding knowledge and vision. He teaches Dhamma that has been merely hammered out in his head, following his own line of inquiry.'"

The Buddha said that unless such people abandon these assertions and relinquish such views, they would be cast into hell. (Majjhima i 71)

Accusing the Lord Buddha or an Arahant of sexual misconduct
1) The Bodhisatta accused Paccekabuddhas Surabhi and Sabbābhibhu of sexual misconduct and was consigned to hell.

2) The bhikkhu Kokālika accused Sāriputta and Moggallāna of having unvirtuous desires and was consigned to hell. (Suttanipata p. 123).

3) Ciñcā Māṇavikā accused the Buddha of sleeping with her and was consigned to hell.

Wounding an Arahant
When MahaMoggallana was Mara Dusi, he made a young boy attack the chief disciple of a previous Buddha and split his head. For this, Dusi was cast into hell.

Usually it is the killing of the Arahant that counts.

Raping nuns: Ānantarika Kamma
A group of nuns on the road to Savatthi were raped (ekaccā bhikkhuṇiyo dusesuṃ). The Buddha said those who rape nuns should not be ordained (bhikkhuṇidusako na upasampādetabbo) (Vinaya i 089). The danger of raping nuns is this: the man who raped (dusesi) the nun Uppalavanna was cast into hell. The rule against ordaining, and the descent into hell, are both signs of Ānantarika Kamma.

Raping monks: Ānantarika Kamma
The rape of monks and novices is likely Ānantarika Kamma, too. just as ordination confers special protection on women, it likely confers the same protection on men.

Sexually abusing novices: Ānantarika Kamma
Ordination presumably confers the same protection on novices. We will see in this section that harming novices is likely to be Ānantarika Kamma.

But in Vinaya, touching a sleeping novice's privates is said to be merely a dukkata offence (Sanghadisesa One, case 30; Vinaya iii 118). This ruling comes from the ordinance of Sanghadisesa Two, which says:


 * If a monk, with wayward intent, touches a woman anywhere on her body, it is a sanghadisesa offence.
 * If a monk likewise touches a man, it is a dukkata offence.

But Sanghadisesa Two does not legitimately apply to the touching of non-consenting monastics, because that is potentially a disrobing offence under bhikkhuni-dusako rules.

Bhikkhuni-dusako is defined like this:


 * Bhikkhuni means nun, but here it stands for any ordained monastic person.
 * Dusako is defined in the Commentary as 'engaging in sex' (methunam patisevitva), which at Vin.iii.028 is defined as 'organ with organ, genital with genital, even to the depth of a sesame seed.' (Vinaya iii 028). According to this, dusako implies penetration, i.e. rape.

But the phrase, methunam patisevitva, can also be translated as 'engaging in what is sexual.' By the linking of methunam with genitals at Vin.iii.028, methunam patisevitva now means 'touching private parts.' If so, Sanghadisesa One, case 30 is not an offence under Sanghadisesa Two: it is too serious.

So out of an abundance of caution, we should assume that if a monk touches the genitals of non-consenting ordained monastics, it is Ānantarika Kamma. In other words, touching the genitals of a non-consenting nun is equivalent to raping her. And the same is true of monks. Therefore the ruling in Sanghadisesa One, case 30, is in considerable doubt.

The different meanings of Dussati: rape, fondle, molest, make love
A group of nuns on the road to Savatthi were raped (ekaccā bhikkhuṇiyo dusesuṃ). But 'rape' is not the only meaning of dussati: it can also mean 'fondle,' or 'molest'.


 * In the course of showing her round his new hut, Udayin fondled a visitor's wife 'limb by limb' and was accused of 'molesting her (duseyyu ti, Vinaya iii 119).
 * A doctor treating a nun, lanced a boil 'in the area between her navel and knees,' then started to molest her (dūsetuṃ upakkami) (Vinaya iv 316).

The following exchange shows that dussati also means 'make love':


 * Then the layman Sāḷha asked the nun Sundarīnandā : “What is wrong with you? Why are you lying down?” “Surely, it is this, sir: you do not want me.” “How could I not want you? But I never had a chance to make love with you” (okāsaṃ na labhāmi taṃ dūsetun ti). Then, filled with lust, Sāḷha touched the nun Sundarīnandā, who was also filled with lust (avassuto avassutāya sundarīnandāya bhikkhuniyā kāyasaṃsaggaṃ samapajji).

Relations with consenting monastics
Ānantarika Kamma involves actions undertaken without consent. Acts that are consensual are not Ānantarika Kamma, however unskilful they may be.

For example:


 * two nuns sexually abuse each other: Pacittiya offence (Vinaya iv 261).
 * a monk invites a novice to sexually abuse him: Sanghadisesa offence (Sd 1, case 29; Vinaya iii 118).
 * a monk or nun consents to sex: Parajika offence (Vinaya iii 040).

If a woman rapes a monk it is Ānantarika Kamma: if she seduces him, it is not.

Molesting laywomen: Sanghadisesa offence
Molesting laywomen is a Sanghadisesa Offence. For example, a monk sexually abusing a baby girl (Vinaya iii 35).

Citations to Pali text
All citations in this article are to the Pali Text Society Pali page numbers. For example, (Majjhima ii 156), means PTS Majjhima Nikaya, Volume 2, page 156.